MARXIST HISTQRT history (though they have made contributions to the study and in addition have said many stimulating things) have tended to produce a kind of history and a type of historical universe with which we must quarrel very radically indeed. If they have been right in calling attention to features of the historical process which had been ignored or insufficiently appreciated, they have fallen into an error parallel to that of their pre- decessors—narrowing their vision, so that they had eyes only for certain things. In a fundamental sense—in a sense which reaches far out beyond the mere question of historical method— the whole Marxian outlook takes materialism for granted and ties itself to a philosophy of materialism, just as the ideal of the classless society has come to be allied and entangled with atheism. The Marxist assumes that the concrete, material and tangible things with which the technical historian is concerned are sufficient to account for everything—in other words, that historical ex- planation can give us a total and self-sufficient explanation of the universe. To the Marxist, then, the materialism is everything and materialist history is a self-complete, self-explanatory system. It is not apparent that a person who rejected this view would necessarily be incapacitated from agreeing (on a different level of thought) ,with the Marxian explanation of the way in which die historical process—the mechanism of con- ditioning circumstance—actually works. The Marxian theses concerning the concrete processes of history might conceivably be held by people who did not share the general materialistic outlook of the Communists— 8?